Computer Science

« first day (763 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (3972 days later) »

Juho

07:08

@Raphael I actually did do video solutions once, some students liked it a lot :)

5 hours later…

Raphael

12:27

@Juho Are they suitable for SE and can you share them?

Juho

12:44

@Raphael Are there any videos on SE anywhere?

but no, I don't the specific ones I made would be anyway. They were solutions to specific problems in a book, and part of a course

Raphael

@Juho Dunno; I guess they would not make a good answer on their own, but as a companion of a full answer, I'd love that. I thought I should make some videos for some of the reference material, but never got around to actually do it.

Juho

But I mean, wouldn't you have to upload the videos to some 3rd party place?

Raphael

@Juho Too bad.

Regarding your feedback from above, thanks; very helpful points.

@Juho Yes.

Juho

glad they were of use!

Raphael

Some comments:
1) Ad footnote 3: we do indeed learn it because we say that the number of inversions (which I give) is a lower bound. I elaborate a bit now.
2) "Adjecency list" denots only one list for one node, afaik; the set of lists is typically stored in an array, not a list.
3) The e_i that appear in the example of answer 2 are "defined" in the method section. Too subtle?

Juho

12:50

For 3), yes, I noticed it was defined above. IIRC, there were some lines of text appearing before the first use of e_i

Usually if that happens to me, I add kind of an reminder what the notation is, or just try to define the thing as close to the site of usage :-)

but well, maybe it's OK the way it is. Maybe I wouldn't have any problems at all had they all been on the same page of the pdf

so I would read it a bit differently as an SE answer anyway

Raphael

yea, I saw that you misunderstood what I wrote later

so I'm changing it a little bit

I guess I'll post it now; there will always be another error, but I think I addressed most of the bigger points.

Thanks again, guys! (cc @Juho, @FrankW, @Gilles)

Juho

@Raphael No problem!

Raphael

I hope these "yes sir, immediate upvote!"-votes were by you. XD People should read posts before voting on them...

Juho

I didn't even vote yet :p

FrankW

Well, I was about to comment about your "make rep fa$t"-strategy ;)

Raphael

13:07

@FrankW If only the post had written itself quickly... ;)

Oh dear. So, "it's long and by well-known poster X" is enough for upvotes? That's not how it should be. :/

I just hope this becomes a hot network question. I want to see the faces of the programmers when they see the big answer. giggle

FrankW

@Raphael Has this reason been given by anyone?

Raphael

@FrankW Somewhere at some point, yes.

Well, not the "it's long" part.

On Theoretical Computer Science someone basically said "if it's Peter Shor posting, I don't have to read before I vote".

Just like peer review works in academia. ;)

FrankW

Well, the votes on the current post can still be explained by people who have read the drafts.

Juho

@Raphael or: "if it's X posting, I don't have to read before I *down*vote" (also the way the it works sometimes in academia? :-))

Raphael

Next project (not for this month, I guess): add answers to the reduction technique reference question. Garey/Johnson seem to present Gadgets, Local Replacement and Component Design in a general fashion.

@Juho And also true on SE, on occasion! ;)

Juho

13:14

a universal human factor

Raphael

@FrankW It was at three votes when Juho said he did not vote yet, so no, I guess. (I don't think Sebastian actively monitor's the site). Anyway, does not matter much.

@Juho Yup. Annoying, that, especially if you break this "social code".

"How can you disagree with me? I'm your Y!"

Also, if one of you knows how to approach non-additive cost measures such as memory usage in a structured way, I think this new question can use an answer in that direction.

FrankW

@Raphael Be aware that not everybody who reads chat is also posting or even logged in. And yes, not an important point.

Raphael

@FrankW Possible. I don't know that anyone does that. But then, how would I know that? :D

Raphael

13:36

@grijeshchauhan StackEdit does support LaTeX (well, as much as SE); you may need to enable it in the settings.

Grijesh Chauhan

13:59

@Raphael Thanks Raphael, I was trying StackEdit since morning for blogger. I will try again and with stetting ..few days back only I came to know about Stackedit from webapp ..

Raphael

14:30

@GrijeshChauhan It's been mentioned on our Meta, that's how I learned of it.

It's pretty neat, but also hungry. For weak machines, I guess using pandoc is the better idea.

Yay! There is at least one programmer (?) who was not put off by the notation. :]

2 hours later…

vzn

16:28

3 hours ago, by Raphael

On Theoretical Computer Science someone basically said "if it's Peter Shor posting, I don't have to read before I vote".

3 hours ago, by Raphael

Just like peer review works in academia. ;)

sounds like YF around these parts...

dirty secret, scientific "peer review" doesnt actually work that great...

Q: Who can peer-review articles?

I was unable to find any information online about this. I asked a colleague who told me that there are no restrictions on who may review an article, although he thought it was very unlikely that an un-published person may be asked to review. I would like a general answer to this question; neverth...

peer-review

a recent hot question that elicited replies even eg from suresh

5 hours later…

vzn

21:36

another one

Q: Why isn't there a pumping lemma for recursively enumerable languages?

I'm studying the theory of computation, and I know there are pumping lemmas for regular and context-free languages, but why not for recursively enumerable languages? Is there something about a Turing machine that would make a pumping lemma impossible? My guess is that no matter how you pump a str...